Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Private Attorney General: Where Winning Plaintiff Avoided A Catastrophic Disruption Of Its Business By Challenging Rescission Of A Scrap Metal Policy, It Properly Was Denied CCP Section 1021.5 Fees Under Whitley Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff’s Financial Burden Not Out Of Proportion To Its Individual Stake In The Case. In Pacific Auto Recycling Centers, Inc. v. Calif. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control, Case No. B338236 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (unpublished), PARC, a scrap metal recycler, successfully challenged DTSC’s rescission of a policy—one which had excluded some scrap […]

Employment, Private Attorney General: Labor Code Section 432.6 Polygraph Rights Provision Did Not Justify Fee Award For September 2018 Firing And Where Waiver Of Employment Rights Was Not Involved

Cases: Employment, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

CCP Section 1021.5 Was Inapt Because Plaintiff Was Only Vindicating Personal Wrongs. In McDoniel v. Kavry Mgt., LLC, Case No. D084660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 30, 2025) (published), plaintiff was not advised of rights to refuse to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment under Labor Code section 432.2 and

Costs, Private Attorney General: $7,670.55 Costs Award And $613,893.75 Private Attorney General Fee Award To Prevailing Petitioner Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

On Appeal, Appellant Failed To Take Trial Court’s Findings Into Account, And Failed To Show Abuse Of Discretion.                Prevailing petitioner, a local citizens group, successfully obtained a preliminary injunction to vindicate CEQA concerns in Save Petaluma v. City of Petaluma, Case No. A169925 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 5, 2025) (unpublished).  It successfully fought

Private Attorney General: $5,265,265.20 CCP § 1021.5 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Case Involved San Francisco Penalty Refunds Of $1.7 Million Which Were Affirmed In A Prior Published Opinion.                Plaintiffs in Gajanan, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. A168328 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 10, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendants to obtain tax penalty refunds in a case under San Francisco regulations, eventually

Private Attorney General: Plaintiffs Properly Awarded Over $1 Million In Fees Under A Private Attorney General Catalyst Theory

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Prelitigation Demand, Causation, And Primary Relief Elements Were Satisfied.                Plaintiffs in San Diego Tenant Union v. San Diego Housing Comm’n, Case No. D081773 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 28, 2025) (unpublished) sued defendant to force it to increase housing-assisted payments in wealthier neighborhood, advancing a perpetual segregation theory under FEHA, the Unruh Act, contractual

Private Attorney General: Lower Court’s Award Of CCP § 1021.5 Fees To Plaintiff–Up To The Time That Defendant Agreed To Provide Primary Relief–Was Proper

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Plaintiff Sought Over $1.4 Million In Fees, With The Fee Award Being $75,961.50, And With A Positive Enhancement Rejected.                Limited success, such as where a defendant voluntarily changes their behavior, may mean that post-change fees are denied under the private attorney general fee-shifting statute, CCP § 1021.5.  That is what happened in Save Berkeley’s

Private Attorney General, Section 1717: Attorney Representing Himself, And Showing No Separate Retainer With Wife, Was Denied Attorney’s Fees For Prevailing Against Lender On Default Interest Penalty Dispute

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717

Trope Generally Barred Fees, Plus Husband Could Not Show His Financial Interest Allowing For CCP § 1021.5 Fees.                In Honchariw v. FJM Private Mortgage Fund, LLC, Case No. A169447 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished), husband represented himself and his wife, although he had no evidence of an attorney-client relationship with his

Private Attorney General: Petitioner Was Correctly Denied 1021.5 Fee For Obtaining Removal Of His Name From Gang Law Enforcement List

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Petitioner Vindicated Mainly His Personal Interests And No Broad Pernicious Policy Proven Against L.A.’s Sheriff Department.                Petitioner sought private attorney general fees in Richardson v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept., Case No. B333555 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) against the LASD after obtaining a court order removing his name as a suspected

Appealability, Private Attorney General: Petitioners Obtaining Annulment Of TROs On Indoor Gatherings During COVID Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

$433,905 Was The Ask, But Nothing Awarded At Trial Level, Affirmed On Appeal.                Financial incentives and avoidances are always at play in private attorney general fee requests.  Unfortunately, petitioners drew the short end of the stick at both the trial and appellate levels in Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Superior Court (6th Dist. Sept.

Private Attorney General: Where Litigants Dismissed Claims Against Each Other, After Denial Of A Class Certification Motion, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Receiving No Judicial Relief Or $14 Million Class Action Objective Not Entitled To CCP § 1021.5 Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Published Decision Only Decided Plaintiff Had To Be Registered With State Bar, But It Did Not Adjudicate A Key Unclean Hands Defense.                In LegalMatch.com v. Jackson, Case No. A169115 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished), defendant defended a suit by plaintiff LegalMatch.com after defendant did not pay subscription fees for connecting clients

Scroll to Top